Rambus (NASDAQ: RMBS)‘s stock had its “overweight” rating reaffirmed by equities research analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) in a research note issued to investors on Tuesday.

Separately, analysts at Zacks Investment Research reiterated a “neutral” rating on shares of Rambus in a research note to investors on Thursday, September 15th.

Rambus Inc. (Rambus) is a premier technology licensing company. The Company is engaged in designing, developing and licensing chip interface technologies and architectures. The chip interface technologies are designed for customersâ€™ semiconductor and system products for computing, gaming and graphics, consumer electronics and mobile applications. Rambus also develops a range of solutions, including leadership and industry-standard chip interfaces that it provides to itâ€™s customers under license for incorporation into their semiconductor and system products. In addition to its leadership solutions, the Company offers industry-standard chip interface solutions, including double data rate (DDR). It also offers digital logic controllers for Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) Express and DDRx memory. In December 2009, the Company added lighting technology to its portfolio of solutions through the acquisition of technology from Global Lighting Technologies Inc (GLT).

Shares of Rambus traded up 2.72% during mid-day trading on Tuesday, hitting $16.60. Rambus has a 52 week low of $9.78 and a 52 week high of $22.80. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $13.53 and its 200-day moving average is $14.83. The company has a market cap of $1.820 billion.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The jury in Rambus Inc's $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc is reviewing more testimony from the trial in its fifth week of deliberations.

A request to hear a transcript of witness testimony on Wednesday was not accompanied by any further information about when jurors in the California state court trial might render a verdict.

Over the course of a trial that lasted more than three months, Rambus accused Idaho-based Micron and South Korea-based Hynix of colluding to fix prices of memory chips used in personal computers and preventing Rambus' technology from becoming widely used. Rambus claims it lost billions of dollars in business.

Micron and Hynix countered that Rambus' chip technology was plagued by technical problems and that Rambus blames competitors for its own failure.

Jurors asked to review the testimony of Farhad Tabrizi, former vice president of worldwide marketing for Hynix. An email from Tabrizi in which he refers to "Rambus killing" is a key piece of evidence in the trial.

Last week, the jury listened to a readback of testimony by Michael Sadler, chief sales executive for Micron. In video testimony, he said he had met with Hynix representatives to discuss setting the prices of microchips, and agreed with a Rambus attorney that the conversation was "improper."

At its request, the jury has also listened to testimony by four other witnesses, all of them former executives at Hynix, Micron and their clients.

Over the course of five weeks, the jury has deliberated on 14 days.

Any antitrust damages awarded to Rambus could be instantly tripled under California law. Rambus is also seeking punitive damages.

Such an award could dramatically change the fortunes of Rambus, with a current stock market value around $1.9 billion.

The company's shares, which often gyrate in tandem with major court decisions, were down 1.8 percent at $16.52 on Nasdaq.

The case in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco is Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al, 04-431105.

Micron Technology Inc. and one of its biggest competitors say they will share the cost if they are found jointly liable in a multibillion-dollar price-fixing lawsuit against them in San Francisco.

A verdict in the lawsuit by California memory-chip designer Rambus Inc. has been in the hands of a jury for more than a month.

Micron and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. signed the cost-sharing agreement last month. Micron made it public in its annual report filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Rambus alleges that the Boise company and Hynix, two of the world's top manufacturers of memory chips for computers and other digital devices, conspired a decade ago to lower certain chip prices and backed off a commitment to make dynamic random access memory designed by Rambus.

Rambus says the conspiracy cost it $3.95 billion. Under California law, damages could be tripled to $11.9 billion.

The judgment-sharing agreement is not unusual in antitrust cases involving multiple defendants, said Rod Lewis, Micron’s vice president of legal affairs and general counsel.

“The agreement applies only in the case of joint liability," Lewis told the Idaho Statesman. "Based on the evidence presented at trial, we believe that Micron will not be found liable, in which case the judgment-sharing agreement would not apply.”

Mike Howard, a semiconductor analyst for IHS iSuppli and a former Micron employee, says the agreement may also be a way for Hynix and Micron, usually competitors, to show solidarity before Rambus. The agreement is a way of saying, “You’re not going to pick us off one at a time,” Howard said. He said Micron and Hynix believe they have “a pretty good case.”

Earlier this year, Lewis said the Rambus' case is one example of Rambus' "continued attempts to place blame on third parties for its failure to compete successfully in the marketplace."

Micron also said it would likely appeal a judgment against it in Rambus case.

In September, company officials told analysts that it has not set aside money specifically against the possibility of an adverse judgment.

“We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible los,” the annual report says.

Nov 2 (Reuters) - When the bailiff knocked on the door of a California Superior Court jury room Tuesday, onlookers reached for their laptops.

But it was just another false alarm for those hoping to finally hear a verdict in the potentially billion dollar case between Rambus and its chipmaker rivals.

The San Francisco jury is in its seventh week of mulling over the evidence in Rambus Inc's antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc .

Over more than three months of courtroom proceedings, Rambus attorneys argued that South Korea's Hynix and Idaho-based Micron had colluded to fix prices of memory chips used in personal computers and to prevent Rambus's technology from becoming widely used. Rambus claimed that it had lost billions of dollars in business.

Micron and Hynix countered that Rambus' chip technology was plagued by technical problems and that the company was blaming competitors for its own failure.

Closing arguments ended Sept. 21. Since then, investors and reporters have gathered in the corridor every day the jury meets, hoping to be among the first to know the verdict.

"I can't ever remember deliberations going on that long," said Greg Hurley, a jury analyst at the National Center for State Courts.

The Rambus jury has a way to go before setting a record. In 1994, a jury in Long Beach, California, deliberated for more than four months before finding for the plaintiff in a lawsuit that alleged discriminatory practices in the city building department.

The Rambus jury has adopted a relatively light schedule, meeting five hours a day and taking Fridays off most weeks.

Outside the Rambus courtroom, onlookers watch for a sign as the 12 men and women exit and enter the jury room for occasional breaks. Speculation about the length of the deliberations runs rampant: could the jury be locked in an irreconcilable argument? Could the sandwiches delivered to the jury room have prolonged the conversation?

Seated on a bench outside the courtroom, Hynix attorney Kenneth Nissly said of the length of deliberations, "Antitrust cases tend to be complicated, so they tend to be longer than other cases."

The Rambus jury is not being asked to vote guilty or innocent, as in a criminal case. Rather, it has to puzzle through such technical intricacies as the latency of double data rate synchronous dynamic random access memory.

Jurors then must apply their understanding to legal concepts such as intentional interference with prospective economic relations, using 57 pages of instructions to fill out a verdict form with 31 questions.

Nine out of 12 jurors must agree on a question, Nissly said.

Judge James McBride may have set the stage for long deliberations during jury selection when he warned prospective jurors that the trial could last until Thanksgiving. Those whose lives would be harmed were excused. Those who took seats on the jury were braced for a marathon.

"They may have blocked off that time in their minds," said Joe Rice, a California jury consultant.

On Tuesday, all eyes followed the bailiff as he passed from the jury room to the courtroom. But a moment later he returned carrying an easel pad, apparently to replenish the jury's supply of brainstorming material.

The onlookers sank back into molded plastic seats.

The case in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco is Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al, 04-431105.